Francesca Albanese emphasizes the credibility of the UN

As six democracies begin the resignation of a United Nations official these days, something will change.

Francesco AlbaneseUN Special Rapporteur on the Palestinian Territories, The mandate has turned it into a platform for political attacks the defeat of the human rear defense ends. And for a very long time, various governments have decided to decide this publicly.

A recent example clearly illustrates this. Among joint United States-Israeli operations in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Albanians agreed and published:

“After the return of Jordan, with a brightness never seen before, what – since its journey through Palestine – Israel/United States are doing in the whole region. Because of what is happening. How can they not see this much? Great Israel exposed.”

The trope is obvious. AgainAlbanian returned to condescending plots about “world supremacy of the judiciary”This suggests that it could be interpreted as an accusation of Israeli manipulation of the United States to use force to expand “Greater Israel”.

Not as an isolated episode.

Weeks before at the conference Al JazeeraHe called Israel the “common enemy” of humanity. Although he denied that this was what I was saying, this interpretation was widely spread.

On February 11, the Foreign Minister of France Jean-Noël Barrotcondemned the “scandalous and censorious statements” of the Albanians.

He noted that they are “directed against the Israeli government, whose policies can be criticized, even against Israel as a people and as a nation, which is completely unacceptable.” He called her a “political activist who incites hate speech” and cited him for a “long list of scandalous positions”, among them “Comparison of Israel with the Third Reich”.

Subsequently, the foreign ministers of Germany, Italy, Austria and the Czech Republic issued statements in which they also moved to withdraw.

But this moment of moral clarity reveals an inconvenient truth: the UN Human Rights Council’s system for appointing, overseeing and removing special rapporteurs is fundamentally broken.

Without structural reform, Albanians will not be the first or the last to abuse the UN mandate. de facto Richard Falkone of his predecessors, also amassed a long history of anti-Semitic and inflammatory statements during his tenure as Special Rapporteur from 2008 to 2014.

The history of the Albanians says the same.

He described the massacre by Hamas on October 7 – which included the assassination of babies, the elderly and entire families – as a “logical” response to the occupation.

He spread anti-Semitic tropes about Jewish power, promoted distortions of the Holocaust, and participated in events from individuals who celebrated the October 7 attacks.

This is not a defense of Palestinian rights: it is an instrumentalization of the UN platform to legitimize violence against Jews and demonize the only Jewish state in the world.

“The UN’s silence sends a disturbing message: when it comes to Israel and the Jews, the rules don’t apply.”

Above all, the institutional defense of the UN is insidious. Your statements have institutional weight. Your information is cited worldwide.

The UN logo ends up giving credibility to anti-Semitismwhile the council’s silence carries a troubling message: when it comes to Israel and the Jews, the rules don’t apply.

However, even before the brutal protests and with various democracies demanding poverty, the UN Human Rights Council system lacks effective accounting. The naming process is opaque at best and transactional at worst.

Candidates are nominated by states, assessed by an advisory group of regional blocs, and selected by the Council Presidency in a “broad consultation”.

In theory, the system favors independence and impartiality. In practice, it is deeply political.

Regional blocs exchange apoyos to respond to certain mandate holders.

States support candidates in accordance with their interests. And since final approval rests with the Council itself—where votes typically reflect political considerations—there is little incentive to evaluate a target or exclude those with documented biases.

Albanian is a clear example of this situation. Before his name, he publicly accused the “Judicial Lobby” of controlling foreign policy and described Israel as a state apartheid.

These obvious biases were not considered warning signs of descaling: they were not shadowed to consider their biases, not even precisely for themselves.

Once designated, special speakers are virtually uncatchable. A code of ethics exists, but its use is discretionary and rarely invoked.

Poverty requires a Council resolution, which means assembling the mayor in a 47-member body including Cuba, China and other systemic human rights abusers.

Result? Anti-Semites act with complete impunity.

This is a paradox: a body devoted to universal domains operates according to anything less than universal principles. Israel remains the only country to have a permanent item on the agenda of each session – Item 7 – which guarantees ritual punishment.

“A system that tolerates anti-Semitism by mandate holders is the same one that holds no one accountable for abuses in China, Venezuela or Iran.”

Meanwhile, China’s massive detention of Uyghurs, the execution of thousands of protesters in Iran, and Russia’s war crimes receive comparatively less scrutiny.

In this context, the removal of the Special Rapporteur for his anti-Semitic and anti-Israel biases does not depend on his concerns. It depends on the votes. And the voices aren’t there.

However, the problems of collective action are not insurmountable: they require leadership, coordination and presence.

Today, for the first time in years, there are three.

The United States is pushing for broader UN credit-reporting reform. And Europe’s various democracies, which have long grappled with the Council’s dysfunction, are being forced to speak with somewhat customary clarity.

This reflects a growing concern: that the Council’s credibility eroded under the weight of its double razors.

The important thing is that it is not just Israel. The system that tolerates the anti-Semitism of mandate holders is the same system that holds no one accountable for abuses in China, Venezuela, or Iran.

Reform will benefit everyone who creates that human rights institutions must fulfill their stated purpose.

A significant reform requires a transparent and rigorous evaluation of candidates. And point 7 of the program must end. All countries must be treated equally.

The Albanian scandal is not an anomaly. It is the logical result of a system that has lost its rumble. We demand that we demand something better or allow more abuse under the UN flag.

The answer will determine whether the UN Human Rights Council will continue to be a credible institution, or whether it will finally register as an organization that fulfills its mission.

*** Marina Rosenberg is the senior vice president of Asuntos Internacionales de la Liga Antifamación.